Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday August 28, 2012 @08:51AM
from the rent-seeking-isn't-the-free-market dept.

angry tapir writes "Apple has asked a U.S. court to block sales of eight Samsung Electronics products, following the iPhone maker's victory in a patent lawsuit against Samsung. In a filing to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple asked for preliminary injunctions against seven smartphones carrying its Galaxy brand, plus the Droid Charge. It based the requests on a jury's ruling on Friday that Samsung had infringed several Apple patents. Apple said it wants the preliminary injunction pending a final injunction."

Only one of these two companies is trying to prevent you from owning the other's products.

View of Samsung? Neutral to positive. They employ people, build good stuff, and don't appear to have significant negatives.

View of Apple? Negative. While they also employ people and build "good" stuff (I don't like iPhones myself, but others do and should have the right to be able to buy them), they do use lawsuits to attack my choices at the end of the day, and prevent others from being employed, and others from building good stuff I actually want.

So I guess you have no problem with Samsung directly screwing the end customer through price fixing in the LCD, mobile phone, and DRAM markets? Because they've either settled, or been convicted of all three.

They patented it years before Android copied it. You see, Google sent a spy into the Apple boardroom, who copied everything willy-nilly without regards to usability. Only later did Apple choose to go with the Notification Center which they had patented earlier.

Apple does not realize the ill-will it is creating with this. It may think this will be limited to a few slash-dotters whining on a forum. The usual stuff. But this is not usual.

I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline. Apple, as the David against Goliath, use to have a lot of sympathy as a result. But its reputation was also earned on the basis of a preoccupation for the product and for the user experience that was lacking at Microsoft. We believed that Apple was on our side.

If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case, and more sustained (despite all attacks on this account by its enemies) than it ever was in the case of Apple, despite the great show they made of it, 1984 and all.

It may take time, but Apple will pay dearly for what they are doing. They are trashing their name, and their reputation. What a shame.

Have a look at the comments on the BBC News stories about the verdict, appeal and the move to ban Samsung products. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, on a front page new story on a mainstream site like BBC News.

"I often read on Slashdot that Bill Gates at Microsoft was a good businessman. I don't believe so. Microsoft awful practices have earned it a reputation that has led to its current decline."

You really think that MS's reputation led to it's "decline"?

1. Microsoft is more profitable than it was during the trial

2. Windows is still on 90% + of the world's computers

3. Office still has the largest share of the productivity market by a wide margin,

Microsoft didn't "decline" it just didn't rise as fast as Apple.

MS just hasn't succeeded in anything lately -- search, phones, tablets, etc. because of shoddy execution -- not because of it's "reputation".

"If you take Apple as superseding Microsoft on the basis of a better understanding of users' interests, you can then see Google as going further on that account, and greatly benefiting from the confidence they earn as a result. The understanding of the user's interests is much clearer in Google's case"

Google hasn't "succeeded" at anything besides being an advertising company. As far as profitability, Android (especially with the money-losing $10B + MMI acquisition) has been a net loss for Google. Even now, according to Google 66% of all mobile revenue comes from iOS.

It acts to reduce my choice as a user. For example, right now the single best smartphone device on the market, from my perspective, based on features alone, is Galaxy Nexus, which Apple seeks to ban for sale and importation. It is clear that they'd rather prefer me to buy an iPhone, but I've owned an iPhone and find it inconvenient and lacking features that I want. Now the only way for Samsung to get their phones unbanned is to remove features that Apple claims are infringing - which leads to the situation

Brings a tear to my eye to see a new gen of people get burned by them.

Apple makes pretty sweet hw and software. They do *NOT* however like to share. They have run many of their partners out of business. Usually on some sort of whim. They do it every time. Take for example adobe flash. Sure its a crummy programming environment. However, instead of treating one of their *long* term partners with a bit of respect they turned on them like piranha fed a lamb chop. Adobe *will* remember that.

I've been telling them that since Premiere CS4 was released, lol. But seriously, they've had this attitude since like 2000. Their marketing was all about elitism and being better than your friends. Once they paired with Starbucks on some deals, it was almost comically obvious. They turned paying too much into a fashion statement.

Then they did everything they could to act like they had a monopoly even though they had like 5% of the market. They'd bully competitors, over control hardware pricing and availability, lock in prices and threaten vendors who sell lower, etc. They had special RAM made that only fit their systems, sued Psystar, etc. They had the reputation of being the platform for graphics and video editing but like I said, CS4 ended that damn quick. CUDA on a wimpy GT440 = 8x faster rendering than dual 8-core Xeons. Unfortunately, almost no Nvidia cards come in a mac. That doesn't stop them from pretending they're still for video editing though. Now in Photoshop Elements 10 and CS6, they have severe compatibility and font problems so it's pretty much over for them on that front. It'll take years to undo their propaganda that they're the best though. I do usually convince people with actual charts, or just reference their awful human rights violations and unfair business practices.

They've had so many macbook hardware problems lately and back in 07 they had severe overheating problems with their initial core2 duo systems because Steve Jobs is too important to have fans blowing out of his devices.

Then there's the way that they run the App store like nazis and iTunes quite similarly. You think you bought that song? Oh hell no! And you can't redownload it either. So everyone, do everything you can to tell everyone you can that Apple sucks and it will turn into another Vista. All the positive marketing in the world couldn't stop tech experts from giving people the real story and ruining their business.

When people want to buy something (short of an impulse buy), they research it. During their research [wikipedia.org] they will ask the opinions of people they respect and feel are knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sorry if your friends and family don't consider you an expert (or consider you too much of a jerk to approach) but there's a rather significant number of people on Slashdot who routinely get asked for computer/electronics purchase advise.

I bought a Asus Transformer Prime to use for work and I've had at least a few dozen people by now comment on it. Usually they don't even realize it's a tablet until I show them. This whole process tends to involve me giving a pros/cons pitch on it. At least five that I know of have now gone and purchased either a first or second gen transformer tablet now...

All these phones are previous generation. Is Samsung still making these? Once they are inside the U.S. and no longer owned by Samsung, can the new owner sell them? Is the answer different if they are new or have been used? Is it different for ATT to sell them, vs. the guy who wants to sell his S2 to get Note 2? If so, why?

The S2 ban may be a bit of a problem as it's still sold as Samsung's budget smartphone, just as Apple sells it's previous model as a budget version of the iPhone.

However, it may not cause them much financial harm as the Galaxy Nexus wasn't covered by this ban and is similarly specced, so Samsung should be able to fill any void selling this handset instead as it was released around the same time, and is similarly specced, and hell, it's already running Jelly Bean to boot which afaik the S2 isn't yet.

The problem is a F'd Up IP system that makes all this possible, and quite possibly the most prudent way to do business. Take these litigation tools away and businesses will go back to needing real innovation rather than punting all competitors with some lame "Button displayed in center of screen" or "Electronics in a plastic enclosure" patent. Patents were supposed to protect the little guy, but how do you even break into a market where every aspect of doing anything is owned by someone?

While I think software patents are pure BS, I don't think cloning a competitor's products is fair game. Patents are specifically intended to inhibit competition, which is why the whole standards process is completely bastardized now. I am not sure if it makes more sense for standards to have patents licensed by consortium at published rates or what, but the current strategy is a mess.

I hate Apple. And I think this lawsuit is bullshit, but I try to look at the bright side of things, and I want to believe this lawsuit will mean, finally, innovation in the smartphone market again. A couple of years ago, Motorola had some interesting phones (Backflip, Flipout and the Droid/Milestone series). Nowadays most, if not all, of the smartphones out there are "full touch", thin, rounded edges.

The Galaxy S/S2 were really extreme. Samsung even copied the charger design! I It sounds racist, but the guys at Samsung were acting like typicial asians: cloning the fuck out of everything that makes money.

I hope this lawsuit will mean we'll finally start seeing innovation on the smartphone market again. My theory is that "everything looks like Apple" because manufacturers think it's about *LOOKING* like apple. Yet, Apple is still the king. The key isn't looking like apple, but *being* apple. It's giving you the experience of apple. It's getting a computer, laptop, smartphone, and tablet, and have them all work together. It's not worrying about drivers or compatibility. It's about the "just works".

I got myself an HTC Sensation the other day. I'm very happy with it so far. But I went to connect it to my PC: it required drivers that didn't even came with the phone. I found them on XDA. If I was to download some "suite" for it, it would sure be a 400MB or more download, requiring me to constantly update it. That's the reason why people choose apple. Given the same price and features, the ability for it to "just work" is the dealbreaker.

Sync has been solved by Android, but there isn't yet a *SIMPLE* backup option for my phone like there is with, say, Nokia, which just lets me plug my phone and hit Backup and have a backup file on my desktop. Sure, I modded and rooted my phone and I can do that and more with Nandroid. But to 99% of people that means nothing.

Manufacturers: get it straight, we want things that look like apple, or don't; and have keyboards or don't; and are white, or black, or silver, or red, blue, pink, purple, yellow even. We want colors, we want laser engraving, and replaceable covers. But we also want a plain black plastic phone. Or made with silly kevlar and alluminum alloy. Oh and a 4.3" screen. And also 2.5". And candybar style phones. And clamshell phones. And also slider phones. And blackberry-style phones. We also want to be able to plug to our computer and work nicely with Windows, or mac, or linux. We want full USB mass storage, or MTD. We also want the option to jailbreak/root/mod/S-OFF/unlock (locked bootloader was the reason I didn't get Moto this time). We don't want to be bothered with drivers (come on, it's easy enough for you to standarize on something and have Microsoft ship drivers with windows). Oh and we certainly don't want stuff that slow down our phones and can't be removed/replaced (MotoBlur, HTC Sense...). And we want updates. Get it together against the carriers and GIVE US THE FUCKING UPDATES. Motorola: why did the Backflip only get android 2.1 in the US, and we in the rest of the world got only android 1.6? Why doesn't the HTC Sensation in my carrier get ICS but the "no contract" one does? But any iphone gets all the goodies.

You know what we don't want? That all the phones out there are just clones of the iphone.

So Samsung and Apple are bickering. Do you really think either of those companies invented most of the techniques in debate? Seriously, bounce back, what not, a lot of these sort of easing animations were done in Flash appls years before.

Hell, I've got ideas, that if I implement, I'll be sued. Even though the idea is nearly 10 years old. And how can I defend against an Apple or Google?

I'd rather support a company that innovated and makes good products. The sad thing is Samsung would have my respect if they actually tried that instead of purposely trying to muddle the differences between their products and Apple's.

I'm not supporting the patent war (I'm against patents on principle), but I don't like supporting copycats, either. Not because I believe that innovation deserves monopoly, but because they aren't even TRYING to move us further ahead. At least Apple made a new product and tries

I understand where you're coming from, really I do. What I'm objecting to is a company that sells for $600, something that is functionally and visually similar to a device that another company sells for $100 - made out of the same component parts, even! - and has a hissy fit when they can't figure out why their market's being eaten away.

Of course, one company carried out the design work and the user testing to create a touch based hand-held computing device with broad consumer appeal--something that many companies (including Apple) had tried to do before and failed--and took the tremendous financial risk of introducing such a product into the marketplace in defiance of conventional wisdom [loopinsight.com]. Another company was able to undersell them by making little investment in design or user-testing, and simply piggybacking on Apple's already market-tes

No, he's saying that the vast profits that Apple successfully made by being the first mover in this field is already plenty of incentive the invest in such "risky" endeavours -- Apple has earned well above and beyond any research costs -- so we probably don't need to grant special monopoly rights for an extra 15 years just to get companies to invest in innovative research.

Now, perhaps you should rewrite your comment changing who, exactly, is "purposely trying to muddle the differences between (the products of Apple and Samsung)"! You might also want to look at the court evidence that Apple submitted, such as the infamous "pre" and "post" iPhone images - that looked absurd when Samsung produced its own version with a much wider, less edited, range of phones on show.

In the smartphone market, they are getting killed. Look what a previous poster posted: Samsung sells almost twice as many smartphones as Apple does. It's only when you add in iOS, Macs, etc where you get Apple's massive profits and market share. That is why Apple is freaking out and going after Samsung like this.

I would be worried about the whole "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing.

Pushing the envelope in exploiting a corrupt system can wortk both ways.

Although corporations tend to encourage sychophants and one might be prone to believe one's own propaganda after awhile and lose perspective. You end up with the kind of mindless echo chamber that guys like you seem so intent on generating.

I guess they'll have contracts signed for to ensure parts are supplied for years. Depending on the structure the Samsung make parts division isn't the same as the make phones division. Better they buy from you than X. Doing Business with people you don't like is business.

Yeah this is the primary reason Samsung wont do that, they make enough profit from it to continue.

What they could consider doing though is upping the prices to claw back that $1billion that way, and they can even target it. As many point out Apple can go elsewhere, but not on all components - even where other manufacturers can develop other components Samsung often holds patents.

Screen technology is one area where Samsung could really screw Apple by upping the cost to them, as they're easily the market leaders in this field, both large and small, hence why IIRC even Sony now uses Samsung panels in their TVs. As they invented things like AMOLED they will hold enough patents on current/next gen screen tech to deny Apple access to the best displays, or at least up the cost to them by increasing licensing costs of such tech.

Apple puts together a good product, but Samsung invents the new technology that Apple needs to build those products, so Apple needs to be very careful. If the rumoured Apple TV turns out to be true for example then Apple is either beholden to Samsung for panels, or they put up with inferior quality panels.

There's no doubt Apple is playing a dangerous game, and Samsung is well positioned to claw back any cost Apple has made to them. If the lawsuits all continue to go Apple's way they could push Samsung out of the cellphone market, but they've not got a chance in hell of avoiding Samsung in the components market altogether - they hold too many patents and are the sole producer of too many of those components for that to be possible.

You've answered your own question. With so much Samsung inside an iPhone, Samsung simply can't afford to turn their back on apple - they'd loose too much money. The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

Additionally there are contracts in place that must continue to be honoured. So if Samsung pulls the plug they effectively shoot themselves in the foot

The Samsung that makes phones and the Samsung that makes components are not the same company, though they are both part of the Samsung conglomerate.

They could start using the worst parts instead of the best parts while still living up to their contractual obligations with Apple, as well as increasing the profit margins of their interactions with Apple, as well as stick it to Apple long term without hurting themselves.

What they can do is shift tens of billions of dollars per year in parts orders to Samsung's competitors. This might very well disrupt Apple for months, but the effect of Apple injecting companies like LG with growth hormones could rebound on Samsung for decades.

Moreover Samsung makes more money selling Apple parts than it does selling consumers phones. If one division or the other has to go, Samsung has already decided which it will be.

earlier in the year the apple tv had a silent update to a 32nm A5 CPU. one core is disabled which means these are reject chips and apple is helping samsung with their 32nm transition. the ipad 3 is a 45nm A5 CPU.

so no, apple is not leaving samsung any time soon. the A5 CPU is mostly samsung with some apple changes. apple can't just leave either. no matter what clueless ifanboys who think apple designs everything scream on the internet

What happens to Apple? They go to another supplier, who will delighted to have such a major customer.What happens to Samsung? The damages they will have to pay for copying Apple will be dwarfed from their losses from losing such a major customer. This is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

not only that but samsung just spent a lot of money to upgrade to 32nm and has interest payments on the factories to make. they aren't going to screw apple and risk having no customers and just interest payments on fabs

Anyway, not sure what a company's worth in relation to others prove about what one company will do with respect to breaking contracts and dropping customers. Remember, Samsung has something much more powerful than fat stacks of cash, something Apple cannot compare: the full backing and support of the South Korean government. Not saying I think it's great a corporation is so close to a government, but that while Apple is making only shiny iToys, Samsung is a massive conglomerate making:

I'd argue that a significant portion of Apple's market cap is driven by a more volatile, emotion-driven perception of their products. They make good products, but many people get them for the status (seriously, how many other phone cases have a hole in the back so you can see the logo?!). If this #BoycottApple stuff really starts taking off, you'll see a big impact to their sales.

Oh well, I guess they won't be done with this until everyone either has an iPhone or something that looks like an old Black Berry. Heh, I just realized... BB never actually sued companies over releasing similar phones like this [wikimedia.org] did they?

Maybe if they cared more about their intellectual property they'd be in better shape today. No need to worry about the competition if you can wipe them out in the courts

They lost the cases in the UK, Netherlands, Germany but win in the US.

Which may have something to do with the major differences in IP law between UK/EU and US. Like - no software patents in the EU (at least in theory).

It would be really, really good if the US patent system didn't grant the sort of silly patents that both sides used in this case (remember folks, don't use an app while playing music without talking to Samsung first). However, it was not the job of this jury to fix the patent system. All of their questions on infringement and validity were of the form "has Sa

Apple lost the look and feel lawsuit mainly on issues of standing. But assuming they had won. What would have happened is Microsoft would have had to use very different GUI paradigms in designing Windows. Windows would have had to look and act less like Mac. So they would have used different input methods like maybe the stylus on a tablet / stylus on a resistive touchscreen would have been common. Ideas from OS/2 and NextStep that were circulating in the GUI community about moving towards object oriented GUIs would have been incorporated into Windows. Maybe Be Inc's view of a multimedia desktop (i.e. like Aero). Heck Microsoft might have bough NeXT or Be Inc to transition.

The most useful shape would be rectangular because that's the shape of the screen - if only for software reasons
The most practical shape to put it in your pocket would be round/oval, because a rectangle will hurt your tighs and tear pockets.

How much do you think Samsung would have to pay IBM to get them to file an injunction against their iPad infringing on their original patent for a tablet? My guess would be not much. I think Apple just painted the biggest, most legitimately attackable target on themselves in human history. They're about to get IBM/Dell/LG/HP/GE/Lenovo-stomped. At least they've got all that 23 billion in cash laying around for legal fees. They're pretty lucky they didn't use it to pay their Foxconn slave labor workers su

Which original IBM patent? One of the ancient ones that have expired? How would any of the single-touch, resistive-screen pen computing tablets apply to a device with multi-touch capacitive screen? And how exactly are the FoxConn workers, who earn a wage around 40% over the regional average for the type of work, "slave labor"? Are you that disconnected from the manufacturing industry as you sit in your comfy chair pretending to be doing a desk job?

The problem is that whatever you might think of, someone has already a patent on it or a patent that's broad enough to cover what you do. Not because they ever thought of using the phone like you, but because they sought to cover as broad base as possible with their patent.

If Apple had been held to your standards they would never have gotten into the mobile industry at all since its impossible to build a mobile phone without infringing on thousands of patents on hardware alone from thousands of different companies and private inventors. If a fucking bounce effect costs billions to use, how fucking much do you think a fucking complete mobile phone would cost? Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

Its not like Apple waddled into a vacuum and suddenly made a phone nobody had ever done before with never unheard of components.

This is what always kills me about those "Before iPhone, after iPhone" and "Before iPad, after iPad" images Apple fans constantly post. They completely miss the fact that Samsung had phone before iPhone and Samsung had tablets before iPad. Apple gets defensive about broad patents on trade dress, but completely neglect the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on the top, which is not so loud as to conform to the sensitivities of the human ear; a mic on the bottom, which is sensitive enough to pic up the human voice; is shaped to fit the human hand and the human head; contains radio technology which enables voice conversations between people across the planet, at the speed of light; relies on networking technology developed by other companies to enable as such.... all the myriad technologies that enable the iPhone to even exist, were in place before the iPhone, and were invented by many of the same companies Apple is so keen to sue for frivolities like scroll bounce.

These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device, just as the fact that the iPhone has a speaker on top and a mic on the bottom is a direct consequence of mouth/ear placement on the human head.

These "Before iPhone, after iPhone" images are a direct consequence of the touch screen becoming the primary input device

I'm all for Samsung in this because I don't believe in IP, but I must say that I clearly remember, when the iPhone came out, that it was criticized all around for not having a keyboard and/or not having a stylus. This means that nowadays we only consider keyboard-less/stylus-less touch screens a primary input device because Apple came and showed how to do it in a way not only comfortable enough for people to not cringe at bare-hands touch screen usage, but to actually like doing it this way, up to and inclu

No, it means that nowadays it's the obvious design because the technology (which had nothing to do with Apple) matured enough to support it. Apple was just the first to take advantage of the obvious evolution in design. They didn't "innovate" it.

I assume you're trolling, but the point of the post is that it showed that Apple properly purchased the chips from Intel, which in turn had a contract with Samsung that provided the right to sell said chipsets along with a license to use them, from Intel. This is why Samsung's claims were found to be invalid and their patent claims exhausted. Intel had the right to sell the chips from Samsung, and that included protections for any purchasers granting them the necessary rights to use those chipsets.

It's not just about things that were patented, but things that are so obvious they are designed out of necessity, not ingenuity. Things like the basic shape and function of the cell phone are obvious and not patented. In today's climate however, if Apple could get away with it they'd patent "A method and placement of a speaker microphone array to optimize audio quality." Unfortunately for them, they can't do this, but they are getting away with equally egregious acts on the patents they managed to squeak th

umm, no... you're right, to build a phone you need patents for 3g, etc. these are standards essential. you can buy them on frand terms. but design patents are just one way of doing things.

if the rubber band bounceback is patented, then figure out a different visual cue. i've seen some nice ones elsewhere. if slide to unlock is patented, then figure out a different way. circle to unlock? spin a wheel? there are infinite varieties.

the OP's point still stands... if you use a little creativity it's no problem to skirt these patents. and it will make for a more vibrant marketplace.

Android normally doesn't use a bounce effect during scrolling, it uses a glow effect. Pretty much all of the claims only apply to Samsung's modifications to the base Android system (what they call "TouchWiz"), which is why you don't see, e.g., the Galaxy Nexus named in this injunction.

First off, if Apple paid every patent owner that has a patent Apple infringes they would have to charge ten times as much as they do today. You talk about two patent owners when there are thousands of them, many with far more impressive patents than Apple has ever dreamt off. If a crappy feedback is worth billions what would patents regarding using the mobile phone to actually make a call be worth, a googolplex? You are totally missing the point.

Yeah, Apple invented something completely out of the blue. None of those old Windows CE "PDA"s (remember those?) had animations, touch screens, etc. Nor were they smartphone shaped. They certainly wouldn't have had an 'i' anywhere in their names.